User:KFvdL

In preparation for edit request

Accepted Evidence

Rejected evidence

• Amazing results for infant colic using CST was rejected from Baby Colic as not acceptable despite being by far the most effective treatment (~ 60 min versus 3.5 hours less crying) :  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0965229918309452

• The claim that CST "can be harmful, particularly if used on children or infants." is incorrect considering 5 studies and 2 systematic reviews on treating (NICU) infants that report that infants treated with CST can leave the hospital days earlier and they do not report any adverse effects....

Articles:

• Pizzolorusso G, Turi P, Barlafante G, et al. Effect of osteopathic manipulative treatment on gastrointestinal function and length of stay of preterm infants: an exploratory study. Chiropr Man Therap 2011;19:15.
• Cerritelli F, Pizzolorusso G, Ciardelli F, et al. Effect of osteopathic manipulative treatment on length of stay in a population of preterm infants: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Pediatr 2013;13:65.
• Pizzolorusso G, Cerritelli F, Accorsi A, et al. The effect of optimally timed osteopathic manipulative treatment on length of hospital stay in moderate and late preterm infants: results from a RCT. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2014;2014:243539.
• Cerritelli F, Pizzolorusso G, Renzetti C, et al. A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of osteopathic manipulative treatment on preterms. PLoS One 2015;10:e0127370.
• Haiden N, Pimpel B, Kreissl A, et al. Does visceral osteopathic treatment accelerate meconium passage in very low birth weight infants?—a prospective randomized controlled trial. PLoS One 2015;10:e0123530.

Reviews:

• Lanaro, D; Ruffini, N; Manzotti, A; Lista, G (March 2017). "Osteopathic manipulative treatment showed reduction of length of stay and costs in preterm infants: A systematic review and meta-analysis". Medicine. 96 (12): e6408. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000006408. PMC 5371477. PMID 28328840.
• Parnell Prevost, C; Gleberzon, B; Carleo, B; Anderson, K; Cark, M; Pohlman, KA (13 March 2019). "Manual therapy for the pediatric population: a systematic review". BMC complementary and alternative medicine. 19 (1): 60. doi:10.1186/s12906-019-2447-2. PMC 6417069. PMID 30866915.

• A more recent systematic review from 2017 on one specific technique, the CV4, concluded that "Despite these limitations, this systematic review showed that CV4 technique may be beneficial, especially for adults with tension-type headaches or with low back pain."^[1]

  • Edit summary when removed: EBCAM is not reliable. The journal title embodies a tautology.
  • Post at Talk: "Guy already removed it, but I wanted to state my objections here anyway. The conclusion of that study is "This systematic review and critical appraisal found insufficient evidence to support craniosacral therapy. Research methods that could conclusively evaluate effectiveness have not been applied to date." And of course includes the standard finding of universally "inadequate research protocols." Basically, it's concluding that the available research is worthless garbage that cannot be used to draw conclusions, and naturally concluding that people should waste more time and money researching it. Yes yes, the conclusions are very promising if we completely ignore the methodological deficiencies. Anyway, as with most pseudomedicine, this is precisely the problem that actual reliable sources focus on. So this is simply yet another pile of studies with the exact same problems as all the other ones, and thus does not move the needle in anyway way. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)"

References